Shining the light on 'Spotlight'
A mantra running throughout the movie Spotlight is that Cardinal Law and the Catholic Church "did nothing" when confronted with knowledge of abusive priests.
However, as is frequently the case with Hollywood, the truth is an entirely different matter.
Hollywood vs. the truth
Spotlight ignores the simple fact that years ago, Church officials acted time after time on the advice of trained "expert" psychologists from around the country when dealing with abusive priests. Secular psychologists played a major role in the entire Catholic Church abuse scandal, as these doctors repeatedly insisted to Church leaders that abusive priests were fit to return to ministry after receiving "treatment" under their care.
Indeed, one of the leading psychologists in the country recommended to the Archdiocese of Boston in both 1989 and 1990 that – despite the notorious John Geoghan's two-decade record of abuse – it was both "reasonable and therapeutic" to return Geoghan to active pastoral ministry including work "with children."
And it is not as if the Boston Globe could plead ignorance to the fact that the Church had for years been sending abusive priests to therapy and then returning them to ministry on the advice of prominent and credentialed doctors. As we reported earlier this year, back in 1992 – a full decade before the Globe unleashed its reporters against the Church – the Globe itself was enthusiastically promoting in its pages the psychological treatment of sex offenders, including priests – as "highly effective" and "dramatic."
The Globe knew that the Church's practice of sending abusive priests off to treatment was not just some diabolical attempt to deflect responsibility and cover-up wrongdoing, but a genuine attempt to treat aberrant priests that was based on the best secular scientific advice of the day.
The Globe's feigned outrage
Yet a mere ten years later, in 2002, the Globe acted in mock horror that the Church had employed such treatments. It bludgeoned the Church for doing in 1992 exactly what the Globe itself said it should be doing. The hypocrisy of the Globe is simply off the charts.
And the issue of the Church's use of these psychologists was not a surprise to the Globe when it actually interviewed Cardinal Bernard Law in November 2001, only two months before the Globe's historic coverage:
Reflecting on the most difficult issue of his tenure in Boston, Law said he is pained over the harm caused to Catholic youngsters and their families by clergy sexual misconduct, but that he always tried to prevent such abuse.
"The act is a terrible act, and the consequence is a terrible consequence, and there are a lot of folk who have suffered a great deal of pain and anguish. And that's a source of profound pain and anguish for me and should be for the whole church," he said.
"Any time that I made a decision, it was based upon a judgment that with the treatment that had been afforded and with the ongoing treatment and counseling that would be provided, that this person would not be [a] harm to others."
Law said the current policy, which bars child-abusers from ever having a job that involves contact with children, is good, but that he wished he knew when he started that pedophilia is essentially incurable.
"I think we've come to appreciate and understand that whatever the assessment might be, the nature of some activity is such that it's best that the person not be in a parish assignment," he said.
Not that we're surprised, but the fact that the Church relied on the best psychologists of the day in deciding what to do with abusive priests was completely left out of Spotlight. Instead, the film repeatedly falsely claims that Cardinal Law "did nothing" or "did shit."
But now you know the truth.
You can't blame church ,paid for, shrinks for this. Over and over those shirnks said that perpetrators were likely to do it again. Your bishops/etc. sold their souls to the devil by sending back again and again and again known pedophiles like Geoghan who screwed up even more catholic (and other) kids' lives.
Your choosing to fall on your sword for Father John Geoghan and Cardinal Law would be simply laughable if it didn't encourage people to forget how the leadership of a diocese can become incredibly misguided, negligent, and dishonest when there are no checks on it. As a fellow Massachusetts Catholic, how can you choose these two to defend? You're like those people who get angry at the police because they didn't read the serial killer his Miranda rights when they caught him killing someone–and who want him to go free.
Let me ask you: Did the Boston Globe ordain Father John Geoghan? Did it appoint Bernard Law as Cardinal of Boston?
Did the Boston Globe remove Father John Geoghan from St. Paul's Church in Hingham, MA in 1974; from St Andrew's in Jamaica Plain, MA in 1980; and from St Brendan's Church in Dorchester, MA in 1984–specifically for abusing boys–only to reassign him to St. Julia's in Weston, MA in 1989?
When is a mountain of evidence from the past and common sense supposed to take effect in a cardinal's mind? By 1989, Geoghan had amassed more than two decades of innapropriate behavior and outright abuse.
We're all sinners but you don't give the keys back to drunk driver…
The "psyhcologists" who advised Cardinal Law to return Father John Geoghan were Robert Mullins (a general family practicioner and Geoghan family physician for 40 years–Gee, you think he might be biased?–who admitted in 2002 that he had no specific background in psychology) and John H. Brennan, a psychiatrist who admitted in 2002 that he had no previous experience treating sex offenders when he evaluated Father Geoghan and who later faced civil and criminal charges from two female paitents who accused him of molestation.
I assume the leading psychologist you refer to is Dr. Robert Swords of the St. Luke Institute, who in 1989 correctly diagnosed Father John Geoghan as a pedophile, then in remission, who would almost certainly abuse again. What did Cardinal Law and Bishop Robert Banks (a forgotten actor in this horrific farce) do with that information?
They reassigned Father Geogahn to another parish. St. Julia's in Weston, MA.
Indeed, Geoghan wasn't removed from unfettered ministry until nearly four years later in 1993.
As someone who lived to learn that his former pastor had a multiyear homosexual affair with a high school boy only to learn that he was assigned pastor to a church with a K-8 school attached, the same one I attended (Thank you, Lord, after I'd graduated!) and whose confirmation leader was under police investigation for abusing boys when he passed away, and whose cousin went through the sickening experience of having the priest who performed his son's baptism later be removed from ministry for suspicion of abuse-I cant let you cherrypick information to defend the indefensible. You're hurting the dozens of victimes and the 96% of priests who never hurt anybody, and you're allowing the hierarchy to delay the desperately needed reform of the institutional Church.
It was Dr. Swords who advised that it was both “reasonable and therapeutic” to return Geoghan to active pastoral ministry including work “with children.” The archdiocese acted on that advice.
http://www.themediareport.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Geoghan-1989-letter-reasonable-therapeutic.pdf
Thank you for your contribution.
Well said Theo!
Why didn't the church you know follow the law and turn the priests over to the police immediately (not to mention defrocking them right away). That was the right and only acceptable thing to do. It it no way exonerates the church that they may have consulted with pyschologists in an effort to avoid punishing the offending priests. And how many of these priests actually served time in jail for their offenses? Not a lot. And how many priests were sent to the Vatican or abroad in order to avoid punishment? Why haven't they been turn over by the new reformist Pope?
There is no defending the church on this issue and any attempt to do so in any manner (including criticizing a Hollywood movie) is frankly disgusting. The church has to live with this shame for the rest of its days.
Sadly the psychology of the day did not completely understand pedophilia. So here you have churchmen whose background in philosophy, theology, and classical studies, certainly they are going to turn to the experts for guidance and direction in these matters. The abuser priests were treated much in the same way one would have been had he had an affair with a woman. They did not understand this sickness.
But, one would think that after the third and fourth time, someone would have thought to take a different approach to the whole matter. What's that saying, 'insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results.'
Yeah Right. Thousands of priests, bishops, and cardinals, have no idea, that child-rape is a horrible crime. They are told. it's a"disease" instead. And to keep quiet. Something very anti-Christian, about this situation.
TrueCatholic, on December 2nd, says "Yeah right! Thousands of priests, biships, and cardinals, have no idea, that child-rape is a horrible crime"
Well that inflamatory statement is a good example of the wild accusations we should expect from this busy contributor.,him being desperate to keep the witch-hunt going.
What is revealing is his use of the word "child-rape". The question must be… is this an appropriate description of the alleged crime, or not? Or is it a word used to obtain maximum attention and illicit a shocked response. Meant to reach out and grab us and make us respond… but at an emotional level?
Yes, indeed. Straight out of the textbook, 'Propaganda For Beginners',.
Try to engage people at an emotional level, so they can't think rationally. This has become a lucrative industry, and there are some surprising characters now involved..
As fate would have it….I once saw a 12 year old boy, who had been raped, only 16 hours previously.He was accompanied by detectives and he was in the process of identifying his attacker, who was then standing in a line-up. Together with 11 volunteers who comprised the line-up. One of the detectives described what had happened, the boy was a run-away from a children's home. The perp, an unemployed chef, had be-friended the boy, and then sodomized him. Later a woman, a complete stranger, saw the boys obvious distress, and phoned the police.
When I saw him he was clearly traumatized…., his appearance alone telling any observer that something was very wrong. Yet people like 'TrueCatholic' would expect us to believe that children in Catholic families have been raped, but their parents didn't notice anything wrong with their kids?
Utter rubbish…only an anti-Catholic bigot could believe such rubbish….this is a witch-hunt.
I am absolutely astonished to be told that these issues have nothing to do with God, the Bible or His(Christ's) teachings. I would like to share a few lines from the Word, and someone inform me how any of this does not concern God, and He has no say in the matter.
"In my letter I told you not to have anything to do with immoral people. But I wasn't talking about the people of this world. You would have to leave this world to get away from everyone who is immoral or greedy or who cheats or worships idols. I was talking about YOUR OWN PEOPLE who are IMMORAL or greedy or worship idols or curse others or get drunk or cheat. Don't even eat with them! Why should I judge outsiders? Aren't we supposed to judge only church members? God judges everyone else. The Scriptures say, 'Chase away any of YOUR OWN PEOPLE who are evil.' " 1 Corinthians 5: 9-12 To sum up what Paul was saying here is, "Kick your immoral hypocrites out of the church and inform the proper authorities so society can keep a vigilance on their whereabouts." – Dan's words.
For these great learned men of church heirarchy, with lengthened robes and distinguished titles, to seek secular counseling in regards to determining what course of action to take with multiple offenders of child molestation, tells me they don't know or follow Biblical principles at all! They should all be fired, including those leaders of all the rest of the world's churches, who are immoral or greedy or idolators or drunkards or make excuses for such. For anyone defending the church and it sins and wanting everyone to point the finger at everybody else in the world, needs to go back and read the above Bible quote until you understand it. Does any of you now understand why I'm not a member of any religion, but love, read and live the Word. -Dan
Did the psychologists tell the Church not to let the priests' new pastors know of their history so they could keep an eye on them? Did the psychologists say that the Church must return the priests to ministry and that the Church could not take any steps to protect children?
When did Catholic bishops start looking to others for expertise? I don't mean this as an insult, but Catholic bishops consider themselves to be the world's foremost authority on everything. They are well educated men who publish all sorts of opinions on all subjects, including things they have no real training in. They have wisdom, and they like to share it. Bishops can't act like they have the answer to everything for centuries and suddenly claim that they don't know anything when it is convenient. They sought people who would tell them what they wanted to hear and asked them to put it in writing so they could claim ignorance. Notice that even though the priests committed crimes, the bishops did not seek the advice of police or law enforcement experts who understand criminality. You can find a psychologist somewhere who will tell you whatever you want.
Bishop Thomas V. Daily wrote to a victim's family that he made his decision to keep a priest in service for everyone's good as God gives him the grace to make these decisions.
Common sense says that even if you give someone a second chance, you take precautions. They took no precautions. Common sense says that if you give someone a second chance and they fail again, you err on the side of protecting children. They showed no concern for protecting children and still took no precautions. Common sense says that if someone has been abusing kids for 20+ years, you do something serious about it. The priest who abused me in 1993 had been doing it for over 25 years. When I reported it…he was moved to a different town. He remained a priest for another 13 years. Is this seriously what you are trying to defend?
Sometimes the truth hurts. I'm sorry, but the Church messed up about as badly as they possibly could. I wish they didn't, and I'm sorry it hurts the people who love the church and who did nothing wrong themselves to deserve this pain. From Pope JPII on down this whole affair was bungled from the start. Why don't we just accept that and move forward?
Never once have you ever heard a bishop, cardinal, or pope, come foward. And just say, "I lied". It's always the fault of some psychologist, or a 'admainstrative error'. Never the horrible lies, they actually are.
On the 4th December, 'TrueCatholic' again makes his customary inflamatory accusations, This time expressing his shock/horror that the "bishop, cardinal or pope" did not admit to "lying". It will surprise none of you that he failed to give a specific instance of "lying". Because being specific with an accusation would permit the accused to defend himself against that specific charge. And we can't have that… can we?
But speaking of lying, we have a classic example, in the case of Billy Doe versus Father Engelhardt. A couple of years ago, in Philly. His first accusaton against this priest was made to two Church social workers, whose job was in child protection. Both these women recorded that Billy told them he had been brutally sodomized… continuously, for about 2 hour or more. He first claimed this a decade after the alleged attack.
Yet when he went to the police he had changed his story completely. This time no accusation of being "sodomized for hours". This new story was about oral sex and masturbation. Why did he change his statement?. If you had read my last post on December 3rd you would understand why he changed his story. Being "brutally sodomized" could not have escaped the attention of his family, so no court would have bought it..
Anyway cases of child rape are often evidenced by bloodstains on the underpants… and mothers do the laundry. So that's the real reason he had to change his story.
The biggest liars are amongst the accusers.
I saw the movie yesterday. Saying that not adding that the church hierarchy relied on psychologists to make their decisions is a huge omission is amusing at best and sad at worst. They should have known better as human beings and as men of the church that it was wrong, that those priests broke the law and that they should have been treated accordingly, as criminals. The institution became more important than the people it served. The matter of who knew at the hierarchy level has still not been fully dealt with to this day as bishops, including Cardinal Law, have not been held accountable for their lack of action.
On December 7th, 'Mark' tells us that …"The matter of who knew at the hierarchy level has still not been fully dealt with to this day, as bishops, including Cardinal Law, have not been held accountable for their lack of action"
Personally am beginning to wonder that in Mark's own world there are only children, and priests. Sorry Mark..but in the real world there are also parents. Parents are the people who are most concerned….to raise and protect children. Also in the real world a priest has very little direct contact with a child. I know that because I was such a student. Was also an altar boy, and there was usually two of us rostered. So am skeptical about where all this abuse was supposed to have happened? I also know that if any of us had been abused….we would have told our parents… in a flash.
So if all this alleged abuse did happen, shouldn't we be asking why the parents have not been held accountable for their lack of action? But the honest answer to that particular question is this… the parents didn't know. Because most of these allegations never happened at all.
They only happened in the fevered imagination of some middle-aged lapsed Catholics, who see a great opportunity to make quick and easy money.
TO PERMIT THIS SEVERE EMOTIONAL. PHYSICAL SPIRITUAL
BY NOT REMOVING.THEM FROM CHILDREN LEAVES ANY PERSON PARENTS PRIESTS. BISHOPS CARDINALS POPE ALL TOTALLY GUILTY. TO BE AWARE OF THESE WRONGS AND CHOSE TO DO NOTHING TO STOP IT . SHAME ON THE ENTIRE CATHOLIC. INSTITUTION. WHO REMAINS EVEN TODAY SEEKING TO QUIET THE THOUSANDS WHO SPEAK THE TRUTH OF THEIR OWN HORRENDOUS. EXPERIENCE…..ONLY SINCE REPEATED PUSHING. TO STOP ALL OF THIS.ONLY RECENTLY. AFTER HUNDREDS OF YEARS IS A POPE FINALLY WHISPERING A TINY WORD OF ACCOUNTABILITY…TOO LITTLE TOO LATE….PRO LIFE. TIL. A PRIEST RAPES.THEN PRO LIFE DOES NOT EXIST…..YOU CANT CLAIM TO BE PRO LIFE AND.HIDE PROTECT THESE SINS DONE TO MERE CHILDREN…WHERE IS YOUR PRO LIFE STANDARD WHEN NEEDED FOR THESE FOREVER DESTROYED. VICTIMS……..YOU ARE DISGUSTING SICK AND PATHETIC….THE CATHOLIC. INSTITUTION. IS SELF DESTRUCTING.ENTIRELY BY THE ACTIONS. THEY ARE CHOOSING TO TAKE OF NO RESPONSIBILITY. NO.CORRECTION…….JUST WAIT AND WATCH…..YOU DO NOT WANT TO LOSE. MONEY!!! THAT.SEEMS TO BE THE BOTTOM LINE……..MY HEAVENLY.FATHER CURSES THE DAY YOU TURNED YOUR BACK ON HIS CHILDREN.
NAMES OF.PSYCHOLOGISTS WHO GUIDED THE CATHOLIC CHURCH???